The 12th Planet/Nibiru/ Zacharia Stitchen/ End Time/ The Gods of Eden & the Mayan Calender/Alternative Belifes

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 10:46
VIEWED: 30595
PAGE 5 of 13

So how did the ancient Sumerians know about DNA?

Also saying "you don't know what you're talking about" when someone refutes the possibillity of a planet X because they haven't read your source material does not a logical argument make. You say you want an intelligent debate on the subject, but at the moment you seem to want people to turn up and say "PirateJenny is right!".

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sounds like an interesting idea, piratejenny. (Heck, it ain't any more far-fetched than Scientology or the cult that formed around Heinlein's "Stanger in a Strange Land." :) I'm always on the lookout for more reading material, I may have to look up some of those books. Me, I'm just a sucker for interesting ideas. I could care less about which views are correct (and think "truth" might be a bit more subjective and liquid than we think,) so long as they spark thought and debate of some sort.

Far as the Mayan calendar goes: well I ain't exactly a well-read intellectual ;p (Most of my science comes from magazines, documentaries on cable, and Isaac Asimov's non-fiction.) So any of my opinions are to be taken with a grain of salt: but as I understand it, it's not supposed to be THE end in 2012, as much as AN end. Cyclical, right? Like the death card in the tarot. Frell, 2012 could be the best year ever far as I know.

Just in case, though, here's a link I always liked. For when that big nuclear war comes around ;) It was originally for researching some science fiction of my own, and it's... somewhat out-dated by now. But it's the most comprehensive and easy-to-read manual on survival a nuclear attack that I've been able to find: http://www.oism.org/nwss

________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
Eh, for some reason the entire scientific establishment disagrees with this. That's probably why people are attracted to it.

But pseudoscience and pseudotheology are still one and the same thing. I can say whatever I want, and it's still unconfirmable and therefore not really worth talking to other people about, you're just going to get backlash.

I could go through a whole bunch of reasons as to why there are errors with what you said in your post, but honestly you don't want me to do that and I don't want to do that to you.

If, by some chance, you do, just let me know.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

---

not really worth talking to other people about because you say so, I think not, after all who are you?] why would you care about what I said to give reason as to why there are errors, I agree that what I said probably didn't make that much sense to anyone who isn't familar with Zecharia Stitchen's work, but that wasn't my purpose for posting this thread, it wasn't so someone could prove me right or wrong really it has very little to do with me at all, no my purpose was to discuss Zecharias work, and to have a dialogue about other views and opinions.you might have something intresting to say but from what you posted I'm sure I'd never know, and I think given an option I'd be more apt to take Mr. stitchen's insight and knowlege over yours anyday.

---

...I looked up "Zecharia Stitchen"...apparently he is actually "Zecharia Sitchin," a popular pseudoarchaeologist whose works are sold as "science fiction" more often than not.

Using Kepler's models for the orbits of the planets, astronomers have found that it would be unlikely for anything smaller than a brown dwarf star to have such a massive orbital period. This brown dwarf, if it existed, would be easily detectable using gravitational and telescopic techniques, and yet it hasn't been. There's also the fact that Brown Dwarf Stars tend to be tough to live on, but even if live could originate on a star, that star isn't there, and couldn't be there if we wanted to have stable orbits for our planets.

Considering that 8/9 of the planets (yeah, Brown and his "Sedna" can stow it, that rock isn't a planet...) are even with the plane of the elliptic, the idea that there is some massive object that comes by us every 10^3 years (such a short period of time, too) is just laughable. We'd have been stripped from our orbit around the sun long ago. None of the outer planets would have any moons. The asteroid belt could not exist. Pluto wouldn't be there at all, and most of the Oort Cloud would be stripped away.

This doesn't even *touch* on how these 'Annunnaki' somehow evolved to withstand temperatures that vary on a far less than evolutionary timescale.

Cute ideas, this Zecharia Sitchin. Now he needs to learn some science rather than nitpicking ancient texts for evidence of aliens.

The thing that really gets me is that everyone assumes that for some reason aliens are either hostile invaders or some kind of amazingly intellectual creative force. If there's life on other planets, the odds are it's either wondering about us in the same way, unable to leave its planet, or just doesn't care about this little polluted planet.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
It has an eliptical orbit, and comes pretty close to the earth, not bad science at all.

---

But an eliptical orbit that would take 3600 years to complete is impossible to maintain. As I said before, planets don't turn on a dime. If this planet existed, it would drift out to the end of it's orbit and just keep going. At the distances we're talking about, the suns gravity field is not strong enough to hold a planet.

Plus, we would easily spot any such planet, because its orbit is so long. It would be visible every year, for most of the year. PLANET X DOESN"T EXIST. IT HAS NEVER EXISTED, AND IT WILL NEVER EXIST.



You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:
Plus, if it took 3600 years, its orbit would be extremely long and very thin. Plnets cant turn on a dime. If it went so far out that it would take that many years to get back, it's gone. It ain't comin' back from that, because the sun's gravity is next to nothing out there. It would just keep drifting and drifting...

---

This claim troubled me. In truth, the Sun's gravity extends infinitely (as does the gravitational influence of everything else in our universe, as far as we know). The real issue is "at what distance does the Sun's gravity cease being sufficiently strong to influence an object in a universe with so many other gravitational objects jostling for influence?"

So I did a little research. It's been 30 years since I did this to earn a grade from a professor, so I went here for my refresher course:

http://www.astro-tom.com/technical_data/elliptical_orbits.htm

First, some definitions:

period - the time it takes to complete one orbit

major axis - the long axis of the ellipse

minor axis - the short axis of the ellipse

semimajor axis - half of the major axis (used in mathematical formulae for planetary motion such as Kepler's Third Law)

Focus - the point within the ellipse that is occupied by the Sun. There is another focus that is unoccupied... it merely defines the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit. Eccentricity means a small minor axis and a large major axis... a long, thin orbit.

A.U. - astronomical units... the distance between earth and the sun. Approximately 93 million miles. It is often used in planetary calculations as a reasonably large chunk of distance to keep from carrying tons of zeros in your solar system calculations. Also, if you use A.U.s for your distance in such planetary calculations, your unit of time is years.

perihelion - closest approach to Sun

Aphelion - furthest distance from Sun

^ - my own notation for "raising to the power of". Sue me.

Given a long, thin elliptical orbit (in mathematical terms, an orbit with a large major axis and a short minor axis), the following derivation of Kepler's Third Law says this:

Semimajor Axis = (Period)^(2/3)

Semimajor Axis = (3600 years)^(2/3)
Semimajor Axis = 235 A.U.

Thus

Major Axis = 470 A.U.

For this Planet X to strongly interact with Earth, it needs to come to within approximately earthlike proximity to the Sun during perihelion. Let's say within single digit A.U's. Thus, at aphelion, the planet will be slightly less than 470 A.U from the
Sun. The difference between the major axis and aphelion should be small enough to ignore for the purpose of this back-of-the envelope calculation.

470 A.U. = 43.6 billion miles = 2.7 light days = 0.0074 light years

Seems like not so much from an interstellar perspective, doesn't it? However, the Sun's gravitational force, while still present, is exceedingly weak at that distance. Weak enough to be no sure thing? I went here to try to answer that question:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/oort.htm

There, I found the following quotes:

Quote:

---

The Oort cloud is an immense spherical cloud surrounding the planetary system and extending approximately 3 light years, about 30 trillion kilometers from the Sun. This vast distance is considered the edge of the Sun's orb of physical, gravitational, or dynamical influence.

Within the cloud, comets are typically tens of millions of kilometers apart. They are weakly bound to the sun, and passing stars and other forces can readily change their orbits, sending them into the inner solar system or out to interstellar space.

The Oort cloud is the source of long-period comets and possibly higher-inclination intermediate comets that were pulled into shorter period orbits by the planets, such as Halley and Swift-Tuttle. Comets can also shift their orbits due to jets of gas and dust that rocket from their icy surface as they approach the sun. Although they get off course, comets do have initial orbits with widely different ranges, from 20

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME